CASE OF DE LUCA v. ITALY
Doc ref: 22741/93 • ECHR ID: 001-11
Document date: December 12, 1995
- 1 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
In the case of De Luca v. Italy (1),
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,
constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 87/1995/593/679. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply
to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
_______________
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 22 November 1995, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
Mr C. Russo,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic
lodged with the Court on 21 September 1995 by an Italian national,
Mr Vincenzo De Luca, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the
Convention;
Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a
complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the
Commission") to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the
Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the
Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a,
art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;
Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 May 1995 on the
application (no. 22741/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr De Luca on
12 March 1993;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings
in an Italian civil court, to which he is a party, and alleged a breach
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the
determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is
entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal
...";
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 6
para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction
under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all the damage he
had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before
the Convention institutions, and stated that he sought a decision by
the Court because the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
was a political body which, given its composition and procedure, was
incapable of performing an intrinsically judicial function such as the
task of determining whether or not there had been a breach of the
Convention in a given case;
Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention
the Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if
necessary whether there has been a breach of the
Convention;
2. Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 to the Convention
that jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening
Panel decides to entertain an application for
consideration by the Court;
3. Finds that
(a) the case raises no serious question affecting
the interpretation or application of the
Convention, as the Court has already
established case-law on the "reasonable time"
requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention; and
(b) the case does not, for any other reason,
warrant consideration by the Court as, in the
event of a finding that there has been a breach
of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers
can award the applicant just satisfaction,
having regard to any proposals made by the
Commission;
4. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not
be considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar